Cambridge Road Estate Phase 2 planning application responses

 

This application should be withdrawn until some of the issues are properly dealt with. This pertains to the incompatibility with the London Plan and the access to open space. Our unrestricted access to 'open space' as detailed in the original Barton Wilmore document, has recently been withdrawn on the 'authority' of the police. The perception was that it encouraged 'anti-social', behaviour.

This has been compounded recently by a sign on the cemetery gates stating that dogs are prohibited. This means that on occasion when the cemetery is open, say for the school run, dogs cannot be brought into the cemetery and families with pupils going to King Athelstan or Hollyfield will have to perambulate via the main road.

It was said at the time that this would happen and full access was only initiated by the council until planning permission was granted. We are deficient in access to open space and this application should reflect this by reducing the density of the scheme.

see also: responses to additional tree removal and the lack of bat mitigation for the bat roosts on the estate. It is unacceptable at this stage of the planning process to have no declared plans for the mitigation of the bat roosts.

Greater London Authority (GLA), The London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (consolidated with amendments August 2023), Policy D3(B), p.108:

“In areas that are deficient in access to open space, or where existing open space provision is under pressure, higher densities should not be promoted unless additional open space (or equivalent improvements) is provided.”
If relevant, you can also reference Policy G4(C–D) to reinforce the open space deficiency context:
Policy G4(C–D), p.169:
“Development proposals should create new or enhance existing open space where possible. This is particularly important in areas of deficiency in access to open space. Boroughs should undertake open space strategies to identify where deficiencies exist and how they can be addressed.”
Greater London Authority (GLA), The London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (consolidated with amendments August 2023), Policy D3(B), p.108:
“In areas that are deficient in access to open space, or where existing open space provision is under pressure, higher densities should not be promoted unless additional open space (or equivalent improvements) is provided.”  

 

If relevant, you can also reference Policy G4(C–D) to reinforce the open space deficiency context:
Policy G4(C–D), p.169:
“Development proposals should create new or enhance existing open space where possible. This is particularly important in areas of deficiency in access to open space. Boroughs should undertake open space strategies to identify where deficiencies exist and how they can be addressed.”
The proposed development seeks to intensify the use of land within an area identified in the Borough’s Open Space Strategy as being deficient in access to public open space.
In accordance with Policy D3(B) of the London Plan (GLA, 2023), higher-density development should not be promoted in areas of open space deficiency unless the proposal provides additional open space or equivalent qualitative improvements.
 

No such provision or mitigation has been demonstrated as part of this application.
The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy D3(B) and Policy G4(C–D) of the London Plan, which collectively require development in areas of open space deficiency to safeguard and enhance open space provision.
Consequently, the proposal fails to optimise site capacity in a design-led manner consistent with the Plan’s strategic approach to sustainable, inclusive growth.